district of maryland united states of …anthony rolland 407.760.6023 1 united states district court...

ANTHONY ROLLAND407.760.6023

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 1:10-CR-181-RDB

THOMAS A. DRAKE,

Defendant.

--------------------------------------------------------

July 15, 2011

Transcript of ProceedingsSENTENCING

Before The Honorable RICHARD D. BENNETTUnited States District Judge

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff: William M. WelchJohn P. Pearson United States Department of Justice

For the Defendant: James Wyda Federal Public Defender

Deborah L. BoardmanAssistant Federal Public Defender

Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript produced with computer-aided transcription.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


2

P R O C E E D I N G S

THE COURT: Calling the case of United States

versus Thomas Andrews Drake, criminal number RDB 10-0181,

here for sentencing today. If counsel will identify

themselves for the record, please.

MR. WELCH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. William

Welch for the United States.

THE COURT: Good afternoon, Mr. Welch.

MR. PEARSON: Good afternoon, Your Honor. John

Pearson for the United States.

THE COURT: Mr. Pearson, good afternoon.

MR. WYDA: Jim Wyda from the Federal Public

Defender's Office.

MS. BOARDMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

Deborah Boardman, Assistant Federal Public Defender.

THE COURT: Mr. Wyda, Ms. Boardman, nice to see

you again.

Good afternoon, Mr. Drake.

THE DEFENDANT: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

THE COURT: We are ready to proceed with the

sentencing in this case, the defendant having pled guilty to

a one count criminal information in this case, specifically

exceeding authorized use of a government computer in

violation of 18 United States Code, Section 1030, which is a

misdemeanor.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


3

I want to verify, Mr. Drake, that you've had an

opportunity to review the presentence report with your

attorneys, Federal Public Defender James Wyda and Assistant

Federal Public Defender Deborah Boardman; is that correct?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Approximately how many times have you

reviewed the presentence report with them?

THE DEFENDANT: At least twice, sir.

THE COURT: Are you satisfied you've had a

sufficient amount of time to go over it with them?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I am, Your Honor.

THE COURT: There are no corrections or

objections by the government, is that correct, Mr. Welch?

MR. WELCH: That is correct.

THE COURT: And with respect to objections or

corrections by the defendant, they were noted in your letter

of June 30, Miss Boardman, and have all those corrections

been made?

MS. BOARDMAN: They have not, Your Honor, but the

most substantive ones have.

THE COURT: Which ones still need to be

addressed?

MS. BOARDMAN: I don't believe that anything on

the first page has been incorporated. I believe it's because

of the fact that this has been expedited and Miss Hall was on

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


4

vacation.

THE COURT: Sure, sure.

MS. BOARDMAN: And then the second page addresses

financial issues. The last paragraph has been addressed by

the presentence report, but everything else has not.

THE COURT: All right. We'll go over these and

make these corrections. I do note that in paragraph 62 it's

referred, in the presentence report there's reference to the

mandatory special assessment being $100. In fact, I believe

it's $25, correct, Miss Hall? If you'll make that change to

paragraph 62. There's a mandatory $25 special assessment

because this is a misdemeanor.

And with that, Miss Boardman, why don't we just

go through here and note those changes, and if there's any

objection by the government we'll so note.

As to paragraph three, you note that there are no

other offense characteristics or guideline factors or

adjustments in dispute and your point is is that that would

be corrected because either side is free to raise issues

under 3553A of Title 18, correct?

MS. BOARDMAN: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Can you make that adjustment, Miss

Hall?

PROBATION OFFICER: Yes, I will, Your Honor.

THE COURT: That would be corrected.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


5

And then the next paragraph would be paragraph 39

with respect to adding a correction as to one of Mr. Drake's

children with respect to his present employment status. Can

you make that change, Miss Hall?

PROBATION OFFICER: Yes, Your Honor, I will.

THE COURT: Any objection to those two changes,

Mr. Welch?

MR. WELCH: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And then paragraph 44 with respect to

a prior hospitalization of Mr. Drake, that change can be made

as well; correct, Mr. Welch?

MR. WELCH: That's correct.

THE COURT: Okay, Miss Hall, if you'll make that

change, please.

Then paragraph 56 there is additional information

with respect to the employment history of Mr. Drake which can

be made. No objection by the government, is there?

MR. WELCH: No objection.

THE COURT: And I think I missed paragraph 46 and

that change can be made as well. So all those changes that

you want in the first page of your letter can be made, Miss

Boardman, and will be made by the U.S. Probation Officer.

And then we're up to paragraphs 61 and 62. I

think the defense counsel's correct, the maximum fine here

would be $100,000, not $250,000, correct, Miss Hall?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


6

PROBATION OFFICER: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. That change will be made.

And I've already noted the change there with respect to

paragraph 62 and it's a $25 special assessment.

As to paragraph 64 and some of the financial

information, I think all this can be incorporated in

paragraph 64 and be corrected. Any objection by the

government?

MR. WELCH: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Hall, can you make

those changes in paragraph 64?

PROBATION OFFICER: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you very much. Is there

anything further on this matter, Miss Boardman, as to changes

that you wanted?

MS. BOARDMAN: No, Your Honor. Thank you.

THE COURT: Those changes will be made.

There was no agreement as to this defendant's

criminal history and he has none and has no prior criminal

record of any kind, not even a parking ticket from what I can

see.

MR. WYDA: I wish I had his driving record, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: I was about to say, it's not often I

have a defendant in front of me that has a better record than

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


7

I do. But that was my college days, not my professional

days.

With respect to the process here in federal court

as to sentencing, Mr. Drake, let me just explain to you as I

think I tried to when you pled guilty on June 10, and

sometimes this is a very lengthy process, I'll try not to be

too lengthy, but it's important for you to understand the

process here.

Within the last six and a half years the United

States Supreme Court has issued two significant opinions with

respect to the federal sentencing guidelines that we're going

to be addressing and discussing in a moment as well as

factors under Title 18 of the United States Code.

In the case of United States versus Booker, in

January of 2005 the United States Supreme Court issued its

opinion in United States versus Booker upholding the

constitutionality of the federal sentencing guidelines, but

doing so with the deletion of two particular sections of the

guidelines which had previously rendered the guidelines

mandatory.

And in that opinion in January of 2005 the

Supreme Court noted that federal judges, while not bound to

apply the guidelines, must consult the guidelines and take

them into account when imposing a sentence subject to review

by courts of appeal for unreasonableness. And the Supreme

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


8

Court noted then that the guidelines were rendered

effectively advisory and that federal judges should also look

at factors under a particular section in Title 18 of the

United States Code.

And then in the case of Gaul versus United

States, I guess almost three years later, December of 2007,

the Supreme Court specifically noted that the federal

sentencing guidelines are not to be presumed to be

reasonable, that they are a starting point in the analysis,

and essentially it's a multistep process in federal court.

Federal judges are to calculate the guideline range, then

consider other factors apart from the guidelines, including

factors under Title 18, and then impose a sentence. And if

the sentence is outside of the advisory guideline range, then

judges are to indicate the reasons for it being outside of

the range. And I think I discussed that with you back on

Friday, June 10, did I not?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, you did, Your Honor.

THE COURT: We're ready to proceed with

sentencing today on somewhat of an expedited basis.

Are you on any kind of medication today, sir?

THE DEFENDANT: I am not, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Wyda, Miss Boardman, are you

satisfied that your client is competent to proceed to

sentencing today?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


9

MR. WYDA: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Now, another thing to go over, Mr.

Drake, are the procedures required by -- I'm sorry, Mr. Welch

and Mr. Pearson, you may sit down.

Under the Protect Act of 2003, which was actually

recently reenacted, there are many provisions, and among

those are provisions with respect to the imposition of

sentencing, imposition of sentences in federal courts, and

pursuant to the Protect Act, federal courts when imposing a

sentence are required to submit certain documents to the U.S.

Sentencing Commission in Washington. The act specifically

requires that the chief judge of each district court insure

that within 30 days of the imposition of sentence that

certain documents go over to the U.S. Sentencing Commission

in Washington. Those documents include the judgment and

commitment order, which I'll be preparing this afternoon with

the assistance of Mr. Thompson, the deputy clerk of court;

the statement of reasons for the sentence imposed, which

shall also include any reason for any departure from the

otherwise applicable guideline range; the plea agreement in

this case, which I believe is the letter of June 9 that was

introduced as government exhibit 1 on Friday, June 10; the

criminal information filed in this case; the presentence

report prepared by Miss Eileen Hall, who is in court here

today; and any other information the sentencing commission

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


10

finds appropriate. And the chief judge of this court did

issue an administrative order back in 2003 insuring that

there would be compliance with that law.

That means that these documents, in all criminal

cases, are subject to some review and may be reviewed by

other public officials over in Washington or by members of

the public perhaps under the Freedom of Information Act

request.

In light of the fact that in all criminal cases

in this court part D of the presentence report contains

confidential family information, routinely under normal

process in all criminal cases part D of the presentence

reports in this court is sealed. In your case, part D begins

at paragraph 36, page six, and goes over to paragraph 60,

page eight. And consistent with an administrative order of

this court issued back in 2004, part D of the presentence

report containing confidential family information will be

sealed. It can only be reviewed by me or another judge of

this court, or by members of the U.S. Sentencing Commission,

but it's not reviewable by any other public official even or

by members of the public. And that's consistent with normal

process as to all criminal defendants in this court. To all

other extents, the requirements of the Protect Act are

complied with and all the other information will be

available.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


11

Now, the guideline calculation in this case is

set forth on page four of the presentence report and it is as

anticipated in the plea agreement of last month. It reflects

that you have a base offense level of six for this offense,

it's found in the advisory guideline tables in section 2B1.1.

There is a two level upward adjustment because this offense

involved a computer system used to maintain or operate a

critical infrastructure, or was used for a government entity

in furtherance in the administration of justice, national

defense or national security. So because of that two levels

are added pursuant to another section there of that advisory

guideline section. There are no other upward adjustments.

There's a two level downward adjustment for your

acceptance of responsibility in pleading guilty, so there is

a total offense level of six for this offense, which is

exactly as was anticipated in the plea agreement.

As I've noted earlier, you have absolutely no

criminal record of any kind. There's nary a parking ticket

reflected in this presentence report. So that you have total

criminal history points of zero which means you have the

lowest criminal history of Roman numeral one, that places you

in an advisory guideline range in what is known as zone A, an

advisory guideline range of zero to six months incarceration.

It also makes you eligible for a probation sentence under the

advisory guidelines. And as I said, this is the first step

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


12

in the process because we'll be considering other factors

apart from the advisory guidelines.

There are no disputed matters for me to address,

so unless there's anything the government wants me to address

or the defense wants me to address with respect to the

guideline calculation, I'll be glad to hear from the

government, and then from the defense, and then, Mr. Drake,

I'll give you an opportunity to address the court. So you

may be seated for a moment.

Mr. Welch or Mr. Pearson.

MR. WELCH: Thank you, Your Honor.

The government's sentencing recommendation is as

follows: One year's probation, 250 hours of community

service, and an upward departure on the fine for an amount of

$50,000. And I'd like to explain to you why that is an

appropriate sentence in this case.

THE COURT: All right. Let me just check

something here. I thought that the -- yes, the advisory

guideline range as to a fine here, the advisory guideline

range is $500 to $5,000. The statutory maximum is a hundred

thousand. And you're recommending a $50,000 fine.

MR. WELCH: Correct.

So I want to address two primary factors. As

this court knows, when imposing sentence there are three main

principles behind the sentence: There's rehabilitation,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


13

there's deterrence, and there's punishment.

Rehabilitation really isn't a factor in this

case. Certainly from the government's perspective, I don't

think that Mr. Drake would do this again; and secondly, he

won't have the opportunity to do it again because I don't

think he would ever get a job within the intelligence

community again.

THE COURT: He'll never get a job with the

federal government again.

MR. WELCH: That's right.

THE COURT: He was within five years of being

entitled to a federal pension, correct?

MR. WELCH: That's right. So I want to focus on

punishment and I want to focus on deterrence.

With respect to punishment, I'm not going to go

on terribly long because you received a fairly lengthy

sentencing memorandum from the defendant, you received a

fairly lengthy memorandum from the government, and you've

also been privy to many, many documents during the course of

either CIPA hearings or motion hearings.

THE COURT: CIPA hearings being hearings under

the Classified Information and Procedures Act.

MR. WELCH: That is correct. So I want to talk

about punishment because I want to focus in on the theme that

pervades the sentencing memorandum, that is, that Mr. Drake

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


14

is a man of honesty and integrity, and I want to focus in on

that theme as it relates to this particular crime because

that's what the court is addressing.

What he pled to is really theft. That's what he

pled to. He stole information from NSA and he stole it off a

computer. And honesty is disconsonant, it's not really a

part of the concept of theft. And my point in making this

argument is to impress upon the court that what he did was

intentional. It wasn't an accident. It wasn't a mistake.

By their own admission in the sentencing memorandum, the

decision to begin to provide information to the reporter was

not taken lightly; in other words, he thought about it a lot.

And the other point that I want to make is that

what he decided to do with respect to the reporter and

everybody else that he was sharing information to was not a

episodic or a sudden moment of decision, but rather it was a

progression of a series of steps and decisions he had been

making for a number of years. And as we pointed out in our

sentencing memorandum, this is something that he had been

doing since approximately June of 2000. He had been doing it

with different people in different venues.

THE COURT: None of whom were charged, correct?


THE COURT: Isn't he the only one who was charged

in this case, Mr. Welch?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


15

MR. WELCH: That's correct. But it doesn't

change the fact that what he did, beginning in late 2005,

2006, had been going on by him for five to six years at that

point.

THE COURT: How does the court mesh that with the

fact that other people involved with it are never charged?

MR. WELCH: In a couple of different ways.

Number one, with respect to the other people, we didn't have

the evidence of intent like we had with Mr. Drake. When Mr.

Drake was interviewed, he admitted that he had taken this

information off NSA computers and brought it home.

Secondly, these other individuals no longer

worked at NSA by 2005, 2006. At least three of them had been

retired as of the end of 2001, a fourth had been retired from

the Hill in June of 2002. And that's what made their conduct

distinguishable from his conduct.

In addition, on top of that, when he admitted to

the conduct that he engaged in, both vis-a-vis the interviews

and his guilty plea, at the time he was a senior executive at

NSA. He was one of the top echelon of the managers there.

He set the tone. He was to set the example of how other

individuals were to conduct themselves within NSA. That's

what makes him different than the other individuals.

THE COURT: I find it a little bit unique, Mr.

Welch, given the great breadth with which the government

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


16

usually uses the conspiracy statute under 18 United States

Code, Section 371, you and I both know full well that the

government under the law could easily have charged other

people as conspiring to commit the violations that he was

originally charged with, so it isn't just a matter of proof,

it's a matter of government selection, is it not? It's a

prosecutorial decision.

MR. WELCH: But I think it was a matter of proof.

In other words, let's remember what he was charged with. He

was charged with retention, and that meant we had to have

evidence of an agreement by others knowing that he was taking

documents home and had them in his home. And at the end of

the day, at least it was in the judgment of individuals who

reviewed the case, including myself, that the evidence was

deficient as it related to that agreement, those other

individual's knowledge that he was retaining official NSA

information within his home.

So with respect to punishment, the court ought to

consider where he was at the time he made this decision to

engage in the criminal conduct with which he pled. In other

words, this is something that had been going on for four or

five years.

My second point, and it touches on what makes his

disparate from other individuals, is the idea of deterrence.

And the reason I want to stress this particular point, Your

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


17

Honor, is because when you sentence Mr. Drake, you send a

message. You send a message to him, but you send a message

to others. And this courtroom is full of people, but there

are many, many more people who listen to what your message

will be.

And it's easy to isolate on Mr. Drake. It's easy

to focus on the letters of support. It's easy to focus on

the evidence that the government presents to counter or to

offer what we believe to be a more robust view of what was

going on. It's easy to focus on the documents at hand. What

it's not easy to focus on is the silent, what I will call

them, the silent majority of people who live by these

non-disclosure agreements, by their obligations to adhere to

protecting official NSA information, and they do it every

single day.

There are thousands of employees, whether they're

in NSA, CIA, DIA, who every single day go to work and they

adhere to their obligations to protect official government

information. They do it when they show up at eight o'clock,

they do it when they leave at 6:00 p.m. There are some

people who do not tell their families what they do for a

living because they take this obligation so seriously. And

that's what makes this defendant so disconsonant with the

silent majority, if you will. And they come from all walks

of life; they are the janitors, they are the maintenance

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


18

people, they are the staff, they are the senior executives.

And those are the people who will listen and look at your

sentence to see what the message is. Does their obligation

that they live every single day have meaning?

Put another way, does his violation of that

obligation have any meaning.

THE COURT: What message is sent by the

government, Mr. Welch -- there are messages sent not only by

the court, but by the government. What kind of message is

sent by the government when the government dismisses a ten

count indictment a year after indictment, on the eve of

trial, after days and days of hearings under the Classified

Information and Procedures Act, and in what I find to be an

extraordinary position taken by the government, probably

unprecedented in this courthouse, for a case of this profile,

literally on a Thursday afternoon before a Monday trial,

subject to the government to be prepared as you will in a

moment to dismiss the entire ten count indictment and allow

the defendant to plead guilty to a misdemeanor? What message

is sent by the government as to those people as to whom

you're speaking?

MR. WELCH: I think the message being sent is in

these sorts of cases, we are going to bring them and we are

going to try hard, and if at the end of the day, for whatever

reason, the government believes that the evidence is coming

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


19

up short, then we have to deal with what we have to deal

with.

THE COURT: Just in terms of a housekeeping

matter, government exhibit 155, government document 155 is

now pending before me, the motion to dismiss the indictment,

and you're now moving to dismiss the ten count indictment, is

that correct?

MR. WELCH: That's right.

THE COURT: That motion will be granted and the

indictment will be dismissed. But go ahead, Mr. Welch, I

didn't mean to interrupt you.

MR. WELCH: You did not.

So with respect to deterrence, the sentence that

you impose conveys a very important message, and an important

message I know that the court will adhere to.

So the reason that we ask for the one year

probation, the 250 hours of community service and the fine is

because that does send a message. It's also a sentence

consistent with a case of equal notoriety, profile, and that

is the Berger case. That is the case involving the former

national security advisor who in 2005 pled to a misdemeanor.

THE COURT: This same misdemeanor?

MR. WELCH: He pled to a different misdemeanor.

But again, it was --

THE COURT: What was the sentence imposed in that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


20

case?

MR. WELCH: The sentence imposed was two years

probation, it was a hundred hours of community service, and

it was a $50,000 fine. And in that particular case, the

timeframe over which Mr. Berger was removing -- in his

particular case it was classified information -- was one

month, meaning from September 2 to, I believe, October 2 of

whatever the pertinent year was. And then on top of that, he

was only charged and he only pled to removing five documents.

THE COURT: What was the fine in that case?

MR. WELCH: $50,000.

THE COURT: His financial circumstances were

clearly different than Mr. Drake, were they not?

MR. WELCH: I don't know what his financial

circumstances were. I would say that Mr. Drake has the ready

cash at hand. He has a net worth of approximately $600,000.

And with respect to the fine, the way I would ask the court

to impose it would be an initial lump sum of $25,000 and then

a payment schedule as required by the probation service.

But the reason that the court must impose an

upward departure on the fine is because the advisory

guideline range is $5,000, and as the defendant noted in his

sentencing memorandum, he received a $10,000 prize for having

been a whistle-blower.

THE COURT: He's also spent almost a hundred

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


21

thousand dollars on private legal fees, did he not?

MR. WELCH: He did.

THE COURT: I think that was the figure admitted,

$82,000.

MR. WELCH: And there are not many defendants who

walk into a federal court in a white collar or similar sort

of case who also spend a lot of money on court fees who also

receive considerable fines.

THE COURT: How many of those defendants do you

think wait two and a half years after their home is searched

before an indictment is returned?

MR. WELCH: I couldn't even guess or estimate.

THE COURT: I'll estimate for you. Not many.

Based on my career experience, having occupied both chairs in

the courtroom, I know very few situations where a person's

home is searched and two and a half years later they're

indicted. That's an extraordinary delay in which when the

government chooses to search someone's home, there's some

delay perhaps in reviewing it, but I find a two and a half

year period after your home is searched to wait and see if

you're going to be indicted is an extraordinary period of

delay, Mr. Welch.

MR. WELCH: Well, I can tell the court that the

case was assigned to me in November of 2009, I met with Mr.

Drake's private counsel to talk about a resolution, and by

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


22

May of 2000 it was indicted.

THE COURT: And I'm not criticizing you

personally. The record should reflect both you and Mr.

Pearson have handled yourself with total professionalism in

my court and it's been a pleasure to having you both here.

But it certainly leaves a question, when you talk about the

fine to be imposed and the costs, apparently from November of

2007 after the man's home was searched until November of 2009

when you came in the case, it was floating somewhere in terms

of exactly who was going to make a decision somewhere up the

chain as to what was going to be done about the case, in

light of the fact that none of the other people with whom he

was alleged to have been acting were ever charged. Do you

have an explanation for the two year delay then from November

of 2007 to November of 2009?

MR. WELCH: I do not.

THE COURT: Do you think the average American

citizen is entitled to an explanation?

MR. WELCH: I think the average American is.

THE COURT: I think the average American is

entitled to know when their home is searched after a month,

two months, three months, six months, hire a lawyer. I think

at some point in time that the average citizen when their

home is searched, which is a pretty, as you and I both know,

Mr. Welch, is a pretty extreme experience for those who have

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


23

experienced it, to have someone arrive at the crack of dawn

and knock on the door and come through and inventory all the

items in your home. I would think the average American after

two years is entitled to know what the status of the case is.

THE DEFENDANT: And I know, as I indicated to

you, that I met with Mr. Drake's counsel in March of 2010. I

though that another prosecutor met with Mr. Drake's counsel I

think approximately a year before that. So I would assume,

though I wasn't there, that some explanation was provided

with respect to where they were at that point in the

investigation.

But at the end of the day, the reason I focus on

the upward departure and the fine is because he shouldn't

walk away in the sense of a comparison between the fine and

this award with any semblance of a notion that he's profited

in any way from his conduct. At a minimum, the fine ought to

be $10,000, but I would urge the court to impose the $50,000,

the one that was also imposed in the Berger case.

So ultimately, that is the sentence that I

recommend with respect to the court and, again, we would

formally move to dismiss the indictment noting that the court

has already issued that order.

THE COURT: A few other questions, Mr. Welch.

The indictment will be dismissed, Mr. Clerk, and the

appropriate order will be prepared.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


24

I wanted to focus if I could there, Mr. Welch, as

I mentioned on the matter of the execution of the search

warrant because when you talk about the matter of profit

being made, and the court considers profit, from my review of

the information in this case, it doesn't appear to be

disputed, that not only do you have a two and a half year

delay between the search of the home and the indictment, and

you basically have explained six months of it, and you as an

officer of the court have not been able to explain the other

two years, I don't hold you at fault for that, nobody from

the U.S. government is explaining that to me here today. You

have a situation where essentially he is, was within five

years of having a federal service to be eligible for his

pension and he's lost that. It appears to be undisputed that

within a matter of a few weeks after being indicted he lost

his job at the university. In terms of the financial cost, I

think anyone would recognize that he has clearly already

suffered a financial cost, and that's a factor that I should

consider when I consider any fine, should I not?

MR. WELCH: You should.

THE COURT: Sandy Berger, who is an advisor to

the President of the United States and travels in those

circles and may or may not write books, certainly is able to

bounce back from this kind of situation far more quickly than

someone who winds up having to work at the Apple Computer

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


25

Store, correct?

MR. WELCH: Correct. I also noted in a defense

submission that Mr. Drake, if I read it correctly, was

studying for his Ph.D. and hoped to get a teaching position

somewhere. So it is not impossible; in fact, it happens

often that people do bounce back.

THE COURT: Well, there's no way he can bounce

back with respect to his federal pension, that's for sure,

isn't it?

MR. WELCH: I think there's a serious question

whether he would have even qualified for it had NSA known in

August of 2001 that he was not adhering to the obligations

that he had back then before he became a senior executive

with NSA.

THE COURT: All right. Just one last thing, Mr.

Welch and, again, I do appreciate the courtesies that you've

extended to the court, but I really do need to follow up on a

matter here with respect to your motion to dismiss the

indictment and my earlier noting in these proceedings today

what I find to be extraordinary chronology of this case, and

I want to give you an opportunity to respond.

When we had the hearings under the Classified

Information Procedures Act, we clearly then had the

classified hearings, aptly assessed by Miss Christine

Gunning, the court security officer who has worked on many of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


26

these cases with other judges around the country, and certain

rulings were made, some in favor of the government, some not,

some in favor of the defendant and some not, the government

made its determination that the disclosure of remaining

classified information would harm national security and ergo

the dismissal of the indictment.

Clearly, under Section 7 of that act, Mr. Welch,

the government could appeal any decision I made with the

appellate court, correct?


THE COURT: And unless a jury had been empanelled

in this case and a trial had started, the appellate court

could take as long as it chose and the whole matter would be

frozen in time, nothing would happen until the appellate

court ruled upon the government's appeal of any rulings I

made with which the government was not pleased, correct?


THE COURT: So that, again, I find the chronology

of this, it's impossible to hear from the government and read

the government's sentencing memorandum, and I certainly have

taken to heart what you've said, and under 3553A6 of Title 18

I have to consider the matter of disparity of sentencing, and

it's been educational for me to hear what the sentencing was

of Mr. Berger.

But having said that, and reading through the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


27

defendant's sentencing memorandum, I must tell you that much

of it was a regurgitation of the facts that were contained in

the indictment. And the counts in the indictment, the first

five counts were willful retention of national defense

information, but count six was obstruction of justice

alleging that he destroyed a document improperly and that's

referenced in your sentencing memorandum. And counts seven,

eight, nine and ten were making a false statement, which are

essentially referred to.

And your oral presentation has been very helpful

to me, but with respect to the written submission, it's just

a summary of the indictment that the government chose not to

proceed with. And some of these counts had nothing to do

with some of the rulings that I made and weren't affected at

all by some of the rulings. So I must say, I take a little

bit of exception to summarizing some of these allegations.

He denied the allegations. The government had a

year to get ready for trial to prove the allegations. And I

really don't think it's appropriate to then summarize all the

allegations again against a man who's finally finished his

process and walked out. I don't think it's appropriate. And

I think that's why we have trials.

And quite frankly, if the government felt that

strongly about it, the government should go to trial. That's

what we do here. I'll give you an opportunity to respond

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


28

because, quite frankly, I went through all of this and

finally after reading through it I felt like saying why don't

I reread the indictment because the government chose to drop

the entire case. And as I tell you, as I say to you, Mr.

Welch, I find it extraordinary. I even talked to one of my

colleagues about it, his career background is similar to

mine, I find it extraordinary in this case for an

individual's home to be searched in November of 2007, for the

government to have no explanation for a two year delay, not a

two and a half year delay, for him to then be indicted in

April of 2010, and then over a year later, on the eve of

trial, in June of 2011, the government says, whoops, we

dropped the whole case. And that's a factor I have to

consider when the government talks about deterrence.

I can assure you that any person in their right

mind would be deterred as to the pattern of conduct of Mr.

Drake looking at what has happened to him in his life in

terms of that pattern, and that's a factor I have to consider

because the chronology here, the chronology here is not good,

and it is not encouraging. And I think the chronology here

would cause many citizens, Mr. Welch, regardless of their

philosophy and their viewpoints on these matters, I think the

average American citizen would take great caution to say,

okay, let me get this straight, my home is searched, and

three years later I'm finally indicted, and then a year after

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


29

that the government drops the whole case. That's four years

of hell that a citizen goes through. And I think the

government has an obligation, when these kinds of cases are

brought I think the government has an obligation to stick

with it or make amends very, very quickly. And there's a

long time coming in terms of the decisions made.

And, again, I'm not criticizing you personally

because I have a strong sense that you didn't make all of

decisions in this case either at the beginning or the end,

and you've conducted yourself very properly as an officer of

the court here and I commend you for that, but I am very

troubled, very troubled by the chronology of this case, and I

think it would trouble anyone in my position. But I'll give

you an opportunity to respond to that.

MR. WELCH: With respect to the first point which

is that the government sentencing memorandum may be just a

regurgitation of the allegations of the indictment, what I

would do is point the court to the footnote that we placed in

the sentencing memorandum where we advised the court that all

the information contained in our sentencing memorandum,

except where we explicitly noted, came from the interview

with this defendant.

THE COURT: I understand.

MR. WELCH: In other words, these are his words.

These are his statements. They're not something that we

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


30

allege based on some other source of evidence. This is what

he said.

THE COURT: Back in 2007 and 2008.

MR. WELCH: That's right. There was never a

motion to suppress. There was never a challenge to the

voluntariness of the statements. And so as a result, as we

sit here today or stand here today, we accept those

statements as true. Do we have any reason to believe that

they're not?

THE COURT: My question isn't as to the accuracy

of the information. Your point is well taken. I'm

questioning the timeframe.

MR. WELCH: With respect to the timeframe, you

know, I can't explain that to the court. I can tell the

court what my personal practice is. I can tell the court the

way I view or how cases should proceed. But I cannot speak

to what happened two years prior to me getting on the case.

THE COURT: Who from the U.S. government does?

MR. WELCH: I wouldn't know back in November of

2007 who was monitoring it back then.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Welch, my only response on

that is is that if the executive branch of government doesn't

provide an explanation, at least it's up to the judicial

branch to note the impropriety of it. It was not proper. It

doesn't pass the smell test.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


31

Thank you very much, Mr. Welch.

MR. WELCH: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Wyda, I'd be glad to hear from

you, or Miss Boardman. I've read the sentencing memorandum,

some portions of which have been sealed, so I usually make

reference to the various letters that I've read and I've

tried to make notes of what was sealed or not sealed, so I

want those members of the family or other friends to know I

have read all the letters, but I'm a little bit nervous in

terms of summarizing whose letters I've read and whose

letters I've not because I was comparing the sealed portion

with the unsealed portion. I've read the military

transcripts and I'm very familiar with this.

MR. WYDA: Again, I don't intend to go into a

great amount of detail and, frankly, my presentation was

shrinking during the course of the afternoon as the

conversation went on.

I do want to focus briefly on the charge that Mr.

Drake pled guilty to and Mr. Drake's character as we're

supposed to do under 18 U.S.C. 3553.

THE COURT: Just to the people who have written

all these letters, I have read all those letters. I can

assure all the people I have read all those letters from his

mother and father and his family members and wife and

ex-wife, I've read all the letters from family and friends,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


32

but, again, some of them were sealed because of the material

in them and some were not. I really can't go into any more

detail on that.

MR. WYDA: Again, Your Honor, I'll try to be

brief, but on June 10 Mr. Drake pled guilty to the

misdemeanor of exceeding the authorized use of a government

computer. The offense does not involve mishandling

classified evidence, which is what Mr. Berger pled guilty to,

or any intent to harm the United States. Mr. Drake did not

do those things.

The parties, who throughout this litigation have

agreed on very little, are both recommending a sentence of

one year probation.

I want to address three topics. Very briefly,

Mr. Drake's remarkable personal history. I think it suggests

how aberrational it is, as Your Honor has noted earlier, that

Mr. Drake would be here at counsel table as a defendant in a

federal criminal prosecution. I also want to very, very

briefly mention the circumstances of the crime, and I'd like

to address what Mr. Welch brought up regarding the purposes

of a sentence like this.

Miss Boardman and I do this a lot. It's our

profession. We do an awful lot of federal sentencing, and

it's not unusual for us to discuss our client's life history.

We represent a diverse array of people. We're fascinated by

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


33

their lives. We have a great deal of empathy for most of

them. Many we respect, some we admire.

I'm not sure I've ever represented someone with a

life as unique as I think Tom Drake's is. It's a life well

lived. It's a self made life. I think it's even fair to say

that certainly at times it's been a heroic life.

In childhood he grew up to a rural farm in

Vermont. Tom Drake wasn't given much in terms of material

things. I know Your Honor has read the letter from his

mother. He was given one magnificent thing, the remarkable

love of a remarkable mother. But it was a difficult, violent

and turbulent childhood. He was forced to grow up too early,

and he did everything he could to protect his mother,

including at one point placing himself in harm's way to

protect her.

At the age of 19, Mr. Drake did something similar

for another young woman who was in harm's way and he again

stepped up, protected her, protected her son.

THE COURT: When he moved from Vermont to

Arizona.

MR. WYDA: Correct, Your Honor. And he married

that woman and adopted her child. They have three more boys

together and built a life.

Mr. Drake at the age of 22 joined the Air Force.

Again, Your Honor knows this world frankly better than I do.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


34

You served in the Army and served in the Reserves for many

years. But Mr. Drake's military record is outstanding. He

performed dangerous important air missions over Europe. He

was highly decorated. He received several merit awards

recognizing his courage, his proficiency and performance

including five air medals, an Air Force commendation medal,

an Air Force achievement medal, two Air Force outstanding

unit awards.

Miss Boardman and I are not experts in this area.

We did consult with some folks who we thought might know this

world better than us, and at least one suggested that we told

him that you were Army and he wanted us to make sure that we

impressed upon you that this wasn't some Air Force guy who

never got into harm's way. This was, that Mr. Drake, Mr.

Drake was in harm's way.

THE COURT: Well, I was an Army JAG officer and I

can assure you I never got in harm's way unless a law book

was about to fall upon me.

MR. WYDA: I think I was in the same service,

Your Honor.

But, again, one of the admirable things that Mr.

Drake did during this time was, while supporting a family

with four boys, he obtained his education kind of in an

old-fashioned way, he used the military to get that. He

obtained his associate's degree, his bachelor's degree and a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


35

master's degree. He served his country bravely and with

distinction for nine and a half years. After that he served

five years in the Naval Reserves.

I want to touch very, very briefly upon Mr.

Drake's employment history. We shared a bunch of letters

with Your Honor about Mr. Drake's various employment stops.

Throughout those letters people mentioned Mr. Drake's work

ethic, his integrity and his patriotism.

I want to mention the one that you alluded to

earlier that at least for some reason stuck out in my mind as

sort of the most remarkable. This case was incredibly

stressful. We had many emotional meetings with Mr. Drake.

This was exhausting for Mr. Drake and for his family. And as

Your Honor pointed out, he had lost his job and government

service, a senior executive position, as Mr. Welch has

pointed out, he was a college professor at a university

level, and in order to support his family he had to find a

job at the Apple Store in retail making an hourly wage.

For some, working in retail after being a senior

executive at NSA and a college professor might be a

humiliating fall from grace. Not Tom Drake. Tom worked, and

he worked hard. We shared a bunch of letters from colleagues

there who commented on what a great worker and what a great

colleague Mr. Drake was.

During the frenzy of the last couple weeks of the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


36

case, Miss Boardman and I went and met Mr. Drake sometimes at

his workplace. It was one of our favorite moments of the

case. We got to see Mr. Drake exuberantly working at the

Apple Store helping his colleagues, helping customers, no

ego, no arrogance, a humble man working as hard as he could

in a job that he was given. I'd hope I'd be that strong.

I'm not so sure. It was impressive, if I can, and again, I'm

going to try to move on.

The crime in this case, the circumstances. Mr.

Drake pled guilty to the crime of exceeding the authorized

use of a government computer. As Your Honor's pointed out,

there is no criminal history in this man's background of any

type currently. He acknowledged the facts on the basis of

this plea since that search at his home. He acknowledged

that he shared unclassified information that did not harm the

United States with a reporter. Since then, he has struggled

through this process, and I guess the way I will leave it,

Your Honor, is we're happy we're here with this resolution at

this point.

I guess I'll move on just briefly, Your Honor, to

address --

THE COURT: Take your time.

MR. WYDA: -- the more philosophical issues

raised by the government's argument.

3553 suggests that we consider a just punishment,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


37

sort of retribution or deterrence as Mr. Welch has suggested.

Tom Drake has been punished profoundly for that

decision to share unclassified information with a reporter.

As Your Honor has noted, he's lost a career in government

service that he loved. He suffered grave financial damage,

the loss of the job, the loss of the pension, the attorney's

fees, having to live with the fact that he may not be able to

send his son to college, the damage that he did to all the

people around him. He and his family have suffered great

physical and emotional stress for years. There has been a

serious amount of punishment inflicted up to this point.

The government mentions, and it's appropriate,

you know, the importance of deterrence, especially in high

profile cases, I think it's natural to go there. Frankly, as

a defense attorney, it always makes me nervous. It feels a

little bit cruel to suggest that Tom Drake should get

punished more severely because of people that might hear this

result out there. But setting that aside, rightly or

wrongly, a strong deterrence message, as Your Honor has

suggested already, I believe, has already been sent to

individuals in Mr. Drake's position. No one, and again, I

believe Mr. Welch has made this point as well, the government

comes hard after folks like Mr. Drake. They came back --

THE COURT: Not quickly apparently.

MR. WYDA: Not quickly. And frankly, according

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


38

to the defense, maybe too hard. But, again, no one would

want to switch places with Tom Drake during the painful

process that he and his family have endured.

The analogy to Mr. Berger is not apt. The

misdemeanor is different. The circumstances, certainly the

financial circumstances, the resiliency, the financial

resiliency of Sandy Berger are far different than Tom Drake

who, knowing Tom, he might be at the Apple Store tonight. My

guess is he will for sure be there tomorrow trying to pay his

bills, trying to rebuild his family's future. And, again, he

will not be consulting with large law firms in Washington,

D.C., which I think Mr. Berger knew he was going to be able

to do.

A fine is not appropriate, Your Honor. We

embraced in our sentencing memo the idea of community

service. Tom loves to serve the community. That's a big

part of his identity. If the court's comfortable with that,

community service would be appropriate. We don't think,

frankly, the number that the government mentioned, but 50 or

a hundred hours of community service to allow Tom to teach.

Again, in those letters, no surprise to Miss Boardman and I,

it's clear that Tom is a remarkable teacher. He's good with

young people. And if there's a chance, if that's something

that the court deems is appropriate, we could live with that.

Your Honor, I guess the final point I want to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


39

make, and again, maybe I can end on a nice note, the case has

been intensely litigated. The government has been

extraordinarily well represented, as Your Honor has noted, by

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Welch. They are extraordinarily skilled

adversaries. We've agreed on almost nothing during the

course of this case. We agree that a sentence of one year

probation is a just result for Tom Drake for the crime of

exceeding the authorized use of a computer. I'd ask that the

court impose that sentence, a period of community service.

And, again, Your Honor, I don't think under the financial

circumstances for Mr. Drake that a fine makes sense. The

analogy, in fact the government made the analogy to Mr.

Berger on occasion in our efforts to resolve this case, but

frankly their financial pictures I think are far different.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Wyda.

Mr. Drake, if you'll please stand, I now

personally address you and determine if you wish to make a

statement and give you an opportunity to speak on your own

behalf. Do you wish to make a statement, sir?

THE DEFENDANT: Only to say, Your Honor, it's

been an extraordinarily difficult ordeal for me, a tremendous

pain on my family and friends and colleagues, and I simply

stand before the mercy of the court, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Drake.

The court has determined the advisory guidelines

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


40

in this case, and there's not any dispute about the advisory

guideline range. It's a total offense level of six, a

criminal history category of one. It results in an advisory

guideline range of zero to six month's incarceration. It

also is in zone A of the advisory guidelines which allows for

a probation sentence in this case. Both the government and

the defense have recommended a one year period of probation.

There is a variance as to their other recommendations.

The court considers that advisory guideline range

as well as other factors under 3553A of Title 18. As to some

of those factors, first of all, as to the personal history

and characteristics and nature and circumstances of this

offense, I will note as to the nature and circumstances of

the offense, Mr. Drake, that the overall scenario here is

troubling. The fact that I have clearly been critical of the

government and the lack of explanation for the time period

and the fact that you're the only one charged, it certainly

takes away from the gravitas of the case. It doesn't mean

that I don't recognize the nature and circumstances of the

offense, which are to be considered. And I am going to order

community service. And I've already, in fact, talked to

military personnel about it and I'll explain in a moment what

your community service will be.

So the implications on any kind of classified

information involving issues of national security are very,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


41

very important and should not be ignored. From the smallest

case to the most severe case, it is a very, very delicate

matter. And you of all people are clearly aware of that in

terms of your personal history and your military service to

this country, a total of 15 years both active duty and

reserve, as well as eight years at the National Security

Agency. So you're very well aware of the sensitivity of all

of this, so anything involving classified material, anything

involving protected material, anything involving material

that we dealt with over days and days with the secured

hearings that were classified here in the closed courtroom

were obviously very, very significant and weigh on the

thoughts of the court.

Having said that, your personal history and

characteristics are commendable. You've served in the U.S.

Air Force. You've served in the Navy Reserves. You've

served your country in a very significant way in terms of

working for the NSA, a very important agency in the lives of

our country, particularly since September 11, and you have

served well. So this whole matter is really a tragedy and

you definitely did exercise very poor judgment.

But having said that, when I look at the matter

of whether it's necessary to protect the public from further

crimes of you, that's obviously not the case, and Mr. Welch

hasn't tried to argue that it is. But in terms of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


42

deterrence, what you have gone through in and of itself would

deter anyone who thinks they can lightly take information

from a government computer and in any way set out on their

own path. The irony here is is that you set out on the

correct path initially and followed the protocols and

contacted the appropriate congressional committees. The

public needs to understand that there are ways that whistle

blowers from government agencies can proceed, including with

classified information and going to the House Permanent

Select Committee on Intelligence and other matters.

One of the members of Congress from Maryland is a

member of that committee and the ranking minority member,

Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger. There are ways to approach

that, and you knew that and approached in that fashion, then

you were careless and went beyond that. And that is

regrettable. And I do believe that there is deterrence that

results from this sentence.

But as I've clearly already indicated, I don't

think that deterrence should include an American citizen

waiting two and a half years after their home is searched to

find out if they're going to be indicted or not. I find that

unconscionable. Unconscionable. It is at the very root of

what this country was founded on against general warrants of

the British. It was one of the most fundamental things in

the Bill of Rights that this country was not to be exposed to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


43

people knocking on the door with government authority and

coming into their homes. And when it happens, it should be

resolved pretty quickly, and it sure as heck shouldn't take

two and a half years before someone's charged after that

event. And that weighs heavily, obviously, upon this

particular judge.

I look at factors under 3553A6, as I mentioned to

Mr. Welch, as to the matter of disparity of sentencing. The

sentencing imposed upon Mr. Berger, former advisor to

President Clinton, is instructive to the court, but it's

distinguishable in terms of first of all his ability to

bounce back from that event and, second of all, the nature of

the documents that he was found to have. But it is

instructive for me.

When I consider all that, I then first consider

the matter of the sentence. This is not a sentence of

incarceration. There's absolutely no way I'd put you in jail

with respect to this offense, and the government and the

defense both agree that a period of one year probation is

appropriate. The statute would provide up to five years, but

you're going to be placed on probation for one year.

With respect to community service, your lawyers

have argued for community service, the government has argued

for community service as well. I have spoken with Miss

Stephanie Schultz, Chief Army Community Services Coordinator

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


44

at Fort Detrick, Maryland in Frederick, Maryland. I spoke

with her this morning, and she's ready and waiting for you in

terms of community service there at Fort Detrick in

Frederick, Maryland. I'm going to require 240 hours of

community service, Mr. Drake. I'm going to require an

average of 20 hours of community service a month. You can

structure that in whatever way you work it out with Miss

Schultz for the one year period. 240 hours of community

service as a condition of the one year period of probation.

With respect to the matter of the fine, I have

given careful consideration to the matter of a fine, even

prior to the government indicating its position, and I'm not

going to impose a fine in this case. I'm not going to impose

a fine for a variety of reasons. One, in terms of your net

worth statement in which you are or not worth, an equity that

you do or don't have in a house. A matter of equity in a

home is a questionable feature in our society today. I'm

well aware of not only the 80,000 plus dollars you've

expended on a lawyer. I've even factored in the $10,000

award that you've received with respect to a certain

foundation. There is no question at all that you have taken

an enormous financial hit in this case.

You essentially, you need five more years of

federal service to be eligible for a federal pension and

you're not going to ever get it. You didn't get your 20 year

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


45

letter from the military, either active or reserve, so you

stand before me as an individual who through all the events

of your life gets absolutely no federal pension that I can

see of any kind. And I have no doubt about the financial

devastation that's been wrought upon you. And I've read the

figures, the sealed figures, I believe they're sealed with

respect to what your income was when you were with NSA and

what your income is now working as a salesperson at a

computer store in the Washington suburbs.

So for the government to suggest that a fine

needs to be imposed to send a message, there has been

financial devastation wrought upon this defendant that far

exceeds any fine that can be imposed by me. And I'm not

going to add to that in any way. And it's very obvious to me

in terms of some of the irritation I've expressed in more

than slight figure is not only my concern over the delay in

this case, Mr. Welch is an honorable officer of the court,

his inability to explain himself the delay in this case. And

I think that somebody somewhere in the U.S. government has to

say to somebody, the Department of Justice, that the American

public deserves better than this.

We're in a very difficult time in our country and

national security is very high, but that does not take away

from the fact that when extraordinary steps are taken by the

government, somebody has to make decisions ahead of time.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


46

And it does not suffice, it does not suffice to have to be an

unexplained period of two years where a defendant waits to

find out what some anonymous figure in Washington, buried in

the bowels of the Justice Department, is or is not going to

do. That doesn't cut it. Maybe the executive branch can't

provide an answer, but I certainly as a member of the

judicial branch intending a voice on behalf of that branch of

government, the lack of satisfaction. I'm fairly confident

that I would speak for almost all federal judges in this

country that would say that that doesn't cut it, that kind of

delay over that period of time. So that's more than a small

factor in my comment that there's not going to be any fine in

this case.

So I've conducted the analysis under the

guidelines, I've considered factors under 3553A, and that is

the sentence of the court: One year probation, 240 hours of

community service at Fort Detrick, Maryland, in Frederick,

Maryland. No fine will be imposed. There will be a special

assessment of $25 which is mandatory. And Mr. Wyda, if you

can see that that special assessment is paid by Monday

morning to the clerk's office and that is a mandatory special

assessment required by statute.

Let me advise you of your appeal rights, Mr.

Drake. Both you and the government essentially waived rights

of appeal of this sentence in paragraph 11 of the plea

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


47

agreement, but I want to note to you that if you wanted to

note an appeal, you should do so within 14 days of the entry

of this judgment and commitment order pursuant to Rule 4B of

the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. If you could not

afford an attorney to represent you on appeal, an attorney

could be appointed once again to represent you.

And Mr. Wyda and Miss Boardman, you do not need

to notify the court, but if you would please make a note in

your file that you've discussed the matter of an appeal or

lack thereof within the next 14 days.

I have a few other matters I want to add here but

I'm trying to make sure I don't miss anything. Is there

anything further from the point of view of the government,

Mr. Welch?

MR. WELCH: No, I think you've covered all the

points, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Anything from the point of view of

the defendant, Mr. Wyda.

MR. WYDA: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I have one more matter to address,

and Mr. Welch, I know I asked some tough questions of you,

I've had some tough comments for the executive branch of

government today, but I want the record to reflect that both

you and Mr. Pearson have conducted yourself with the height

of professionalism before me in any and all matters, and you

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


48

weren't known to the court before you arrived and I'm not

sure if you'll be back in this court because you're from

other jury jurisdiction, but I want to commend you for your

level of professionalism in all matters before the court,

both in public matters and some of the classified hearings

and I commend you for your professionalism. Sometimes it's

tough to be the messenger, Mr. Welch, when you have to try to

answer for the entire U.S. government. I wasn't casting

anything personally upon you, it was more directed at the

executive branch, and I commend you and Mr. Pearson for your

professionalism in this case.

MR. WELCH: Thank you, Your Honor. It was a

pleasure to appear before you and I assure you I have broad

shoulders and I have no problem being the messenger.

THE COURT: Thank you very much.

MR. PEARSON: Thank you, Judge.

THE COURT: And Mr. Wyda and Miss Boardman, the

U.S. Attorney's Office in Maryland has a rich tradition here

with respect to national cases and a national reputation.

What has been known in this court for a long time is the

quality of the Public Defender's Office in this district,

which is equal to the outstanding quality of the U.S.

Attorney's Office, and your representation of your client has

been at the highest levels of professionalism and at the

highest levels of legal competence.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


49

There are not two lawyers in the country who

could have done a better job for you, Mr. Drake, than the two

lawyers who represented you here in this case. And I think

it's been a great showing on behalf of the Public Defender's

Office, which is not the least bit of a surprise to this

legal community. But to the extent it has become known in

any sense nationally it is well deserved because the

reputation of Miss Boardman and Mr. Wyda are at the highest

level, and I commend both of you for an outstanding

representation of your client.

MR. WYDA: Thank you very much.

THE COURT: And Mr. Drake, as to that, this

matter is closed and I wish you the best of luck in the rest

of your life.

(SENTENCING CONCLUDED.)

I certify that the foregoing is a correct

transcript from the record of proceedings in the

above-entitled matter.

s/ Anthony Rolland

district of maryland united states of …anthony rolland 407.760.6023 1 united states district court...

Documents